The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 The End[edit]

2016 The End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A movie that fails notability guidelines for films, and general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has a full independent review in The Times of India here, will look for more later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have found some more reviews: Dekh News, Telangana Today which is a newspaper, see Telangana Today, and livehindustan.com, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have huge doubts about reliability about these sources (except telangana today). The reviews seems to be paid reviews. In any case, they are reviews by websites that would cover most of the films released recently. None of the critics who gave review are "nationally known critics", they arent even known as critics. That was the first criteria. The film fails rest of the criteria as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to have plenty of sources. - Scarpy (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: there are sources, but they are not WP:RS. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: The "plenty of sources" are two on the article. Three but IMDb was used as a reference (moved to "External links"). "Makers of 2016 The End release trailer of the comedy film" (International Business Times) was from Oct 6, 2016 and is dubious. This is a BLP related article so the usual; "The state of references on the article does not matter as long as there are sources out there" would be at odds with BLP policies and guidelines with only "Critic Review of 2016 The End" (Times Of India). I would think someone would dig out a HEY! instead of just posting them on the discussion considering the current poor BLP sourcing. If Telanganatoday.com, livehindustan.com (needs translating), and Dekh News (I could not bring up) are reliable sources (I am not familiar with any but the Times) then there are ample sources. The movie was a flop, with one review giving 2 1/2 stars and the rest either a bad review or 1 star out of five. The movie was a year over the production timeline so 2016 The End (2017) would seem more appropriate. If kept it would be interesting (if possible) to include the reasoning for the delayed production time in the article, so it doesn't seem like a missed prophesy (or missed doomsday) movie, but that is a content issue. Otr500 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as a film article rather than a BLP it passes the first criteria of WP:NFILM as a widely released film having full independent reviews by nationally known critics (meaning published in national newspapers) such as The Times of India and Telangana Today even if the other reviews are disregarded which is not established that they are definitely unreliable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Telangana Today is not a national newspaper. Its a state-wide newspaper. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't disagree that it passes WP:NFILM. I "assume" there are likely even more sources "out there" and the reason I haven't argued delete. I would point out that with 10 names listed like 22 times on the article (somewhat overkill on a "Stub-class" with triple repeated blue links) someone else will likely read this, and even if it survives this AFD, it may likely be resubmitted. BLP articles, or those related that mentions a living person, according to policies and guidelines, "must" be held to a higher standard. We generally don't just try to take one "rule" and forget the others. and it really doesn't matter if the material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Anyone that has the right resources might want to consider that and possibly provide additional sourcing. At any rate: Have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I could find were mostly tabloid type, or non-reliable at best (exluding times of India). Thats why i had to take it to AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: My opinion will not count "if" this is just a headcount. The rationale for a !vote is: One reference and a trailer release does not provide evidence of clear notability. We cannot override other policies and guidelines (especially BLP related) with "as a film article rather than a BLP" to squeeze in notability by exception. I could not find anything else substantial on the movie. Otr500 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are no BLP concerns with this film article and there are 2 reliable sources independent reviews and state-level press counts for WP:GNG especially the size of Indian states, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.